Aircraft/Helo pilots vs Drone pilots

[Moosewax]

Two things I have issue with. Telemetry failure due to interference. If I have no knowledge of potential radio interference and my bird goes down due to it, it isn't my fault, it isn't pilot error. Now that I now know that the construction buildings have high power routers if I were to make the same mistake, yes it would be my fault.

You are correct that physical factors such as fatigue can be a factor in any accident. Tell me how you prove fatigue well after the fact? Poor training, sure but in most cases folks flying drones are self taught, we go out buy a drone, fly it and learn as we go. Agreed this probably isn't the best, but it is reality.
The company I work for gives a performance test to anyone wanting to work for them, and it isn't an easy test because of the environment we work in. However there are people that buy a drone, pickup a business license, and hang their shingle out and there is no performance evaluation required.

Maybe the time will come when someone wanting a commercial drone license will need to prove they can fly it well, and is a safe manner, but that day hasn't come yet. That is why a new private pilot can't jump into commercial aviation until he builds some time, knowledge, and experience.

In your outline of possible causes for an accident or failure you start with pilot error. I have dealt with the FAA many times, and I have never had an accident. One thing I do know, in any incident the first thing they want to do is blame the pilot unless it is blatantly obvious pilot error wasn't a factor.

[/QUOTE]

If you want to not get caught with your pants down due to RF interference you could always get an RF meter and check an area for interference sources before you fly.

Otherwise just get familiar with your failsafes on your particular drone and how it will behave after losing link.

There are usually options for increasing awareness, it often just comes down to knowledge and money.

 

[R.Perry]

Note the difference between 'fault' and 'responsibility'. It may not be the airliner's fault that a flock of birds stopped their engine, but it is their responsibility that this event doesn't cause damage or death when the plane crashes to the ground.
.

That is why our so called legal system is so screwed up. Putting responsibility on someone, or company when they have no control over an incident, to me is down right stupidity. Lawyers have no sense of right and wrong, it is just matter of who they can screw.

 

[flockshot]

That is why our so called legal system is so screwed up. Putting responsibility on someone, or company when they have no control over an incident, to me is down right stupidity. Lawyers have no sense of right and wrong, it is just matter of who they can screw.

Aviation pilots have accepted this responsibility for a very long time. If you don't fly over people, you won't hurt people. If you don't fly over other peoples stuff, you won't hurt their stuff. We must always 'expect' that our drone will fall out of the sky, and fly accordingly. That is not a legal problem, it is a pilot problem.

 

[aerialimagery]

Aviation pilots have accepted this responsibility for a very long time. If you don't fly over people, you won't hurt people. If you don't fly over other peoples stuff, you won't hurt their stuff. We must always 'expect' that our drone will fall out of the sky, and fly accordingly. That is not a legal problem, it is a pilot problem.

I understand why we don't fly over people with our drones since we have no control over them once they fail, unlike in a helicopter or airplane, so I don't understand what you're saying about aviation pilots not flying over people or their stuff. That's unavoidable.

 

[flockshot]

The airplane stuff doesn't matter to drones, but as you note, they still have some control after power failure. My comments about flying over people and their stuff was intended to be part of the drone conversation.
Since you bring it up, the airplane/helicopter guys do have some restrictions as to flying over people and their stuff. They need to be high enough (their judgment generally) so that if they loose power they can glide to a reasonable landing (crash) site that protects people. It is every pilots responsibility.
I don't intend this to be a 'holier than thou' post, I just think that 'safety for folks on the ground' gets overlooked too much in the posts that I read. I hope that the rules get recognized, as being a reasonable restriction on our activities, and not something to be "gotten around" in the name of fun.

 

[FlyinRyan]

Manned Pilot Requirements according to the FAR- so yes, their judgement, but also some hard numbers:
§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

 

[flockshot]

As you can see, it is basically the same set of rules for everybody up there.

 

[R.Perry]

If you are to fly with the expectation that your drone may fall out of the sky, or take off on it's own at any given moment leaving you with no control including return to home. Then with those expectations you shouldn't fly anywhere where there are people or property within the maximum range the drone could possibly fly, leaving the drone completely useless in most places. I know that is abstract logic, but that sounds to me what some of you are implying.

If a drone pilot losses all control of the drone due to no fault of his own, then the liability should be placed on the manufacturer or software developer, not the pilot or company using the drone.

Since I have never experienced a catastrophic failure of either of the drones I fly, and the return to home has always functioned properly when needed. Litchi and Drone Deploy have worked flawless for me and I have always been able to disengage from autonomous flight why should I live with paranoia that at any given moment if will fail ?

Any of us that fly understand the altitude restrictions placed on pilots over populated areas, and those restrictions are there for a good reason. I would hope the FAA would come up with some realistic guidelines for flight over people, say 200 foot minimum, but they haven't yet.

The 1000 foot minimum over certain cities to me is too low. Take the Los Angeles area, if you are 1000 AGL and lose power there if a very good chance you aren't going to have a place to land depending on what your glide ratio is.

 

[FlyinRyan]

So, that concern is addressed in 91.119 (a) above, which is why I said it is both pilot's judgement and hard numbers:

"(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."

The pilot's responsibility is also covered here, which applies to Remote Pilots as well as Manned Pilots:

§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

 

[aerialimagery]

The 1000 foot minimum over certain cities to me is too low. Take the Los Angeles area, if you are 1000 AGL and lose power there if a very good chance you aren't going to have a place to land depending on what your glide ratio is.

I was once doing a photo flight in the LA area in a 172 and as we were flying away from the site at 1,000 feet, I asked the pilot if we had an engine failure, did he have place to land, and his response was, "Nope, we're dead..."

 

[R.Perry]

So, that concern is addressed in 91.119 (a) above, which is why I said it is both pilot's judgement and hard numbers:

"(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."

The pilot's responsibility is also covered here, which applies to Remote Pilots as well as Manned Pilots:

§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

I'm very familiar 91.3 reg, I've been a pilot since 1978. The key wording he is "pilot in command", if I'm not longer in command, (meaning I have no control over the aircraft), then whatever is controlling the aircraft is what/ or who is in command.

Remember these regulations were written long before autonomous flight, and computer controlled aircraft. Decision making was always placed in the pilots lap, ATC wasn't the one with ultimate control, the pilot was. That is why the regulation was written, if ATC gave you a heading to fly that would put you in the middle of the thunderstorm you could refuse that order for your safety and that safety of you passenger and those on the ground. Yes the buck stopped with the pilot.

Today the pilot in command can very well be a computer, so if the computer screws the pooch it isn't the pilots fault. The FAA puts most all the responsibility on the pilot, and as long as he is in control of the aircraft that is the way it should be.

Now lets say I decide to fly my drone when there is a thunder and lighting storm and it goes down and hurts someone, or damages property, then I'm responsible because I wasn't using good judgement as to what is safe operating conditions.

I recommend everyone that flys anything watch the movie "Sully". If you have an accident, you will be dealing with the NTSB and they start off with the attitude that the pilot screwed the pooch, not what could have caused the accident beyond the pilots control.

 

[FlyinRyan]

I think the FAA would still refer to the Remote Pilot as the PIC. Someone has to turn the switch on, and in doing so assume the responsibility to ensure the flight is conducted safely. With either manned or unmanned flight, the manufacturer may share or be solely at fault for the accident. As you said above, if there is an accident the NTSB will always go after the pilot first.